6.  The applicant was born in 1953. She lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is the mother of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov.
7.  At the material time Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov was a police officer in the PPMS battalion (the police patrolling unit) of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the Chechnya MVD).
8.  At about 11.30 p.m. on 19 November 2004 sergeant Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov and his colleague, private M.K., were driving in their car in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. Next to “Musa Motors” car service station they were stopped by a group of thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms, who drove around in ten to fifteen silver cars without registration numbers.
9.  The men introduced themselves as police officers of the OMON (special task unit) of the Chechnya MVD and explained that they were conducting a special operation to arrest a criminal. It is unclear what subsequently happened during the encounter. The armed men opened gunfire, took away the service guns of the two PPMS officers and the service identity card of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov. The applicant’s son received several gunshot wounds in the torso and perforating wounds on both feet and the upper part of his left leg. He was taken to Grozny town hospital no. 9.
10.  On 21 November 2004 Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov died in the hospital.
(b)  Subsequent events
11.  On 22 November 2004 the chief of the headquarters of the PPMS battalion at the Chechnya MVD, officer S.R., the deputy head of the battalion, Mr L.‑A.B., and the head of the battalion’s human resources department, Mr S.D., attended Khozh-Akhmed Akhmadov’s funeral.
12.  According to the applicant, they told her that the persons who had killed her son had been identified; and that the perpetrators of the killing had spoken to the heads of the battalion and returned the service guns and the service identity card which they had taken away during the incident. The perpetrators had explained that they were from the local ‘Oil battalion’ (нефте-полк), under the command of Mr A.M., and that they had killed Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov by mistake.
13.  According to the applicant, officers S.R., L.‑A.B. and S.D. assured her that the perpetrators of her son’s killing would be duly prosecuted.
14.  In support of her statements the applicant submitted copies of the documents she had received from the authorities.
15.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. However, they stated that the perpetrators of the applicant’s son’s killing had not belonged to any military or law‑enforcement agency, and that he had been a victim of unidentified criminals.
16.  On 26 November 2004 the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Grozny instituted an investigation into the killing of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder). The case file was given the number 30139. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“...At about 10.30 p.m. on 19 November 2004 two officers of Regiment PPSM‑1, Mr M.K. and Mr Khozh-Akhmed Akhmadov were driving in their VAZ-21099 car in Zhukovskogo Street, in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. Next to the service station “Musa Motors” they were stopped by unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms, who asked the officers about their identities...[the masked men] shot Kh.-A. Akhmadov with automatic firearms ...
... [a group] of police officers who were patrolling the area at the time, stated during their questioning [by the investigators], that the unidentified men who had shot Kh.-A. Akhmadov had introduced themselves [to them] as servicemen from the OMON of the Chechnya MVD and had explained [to them] that they were conducting a special operation in order to arrest a criminal... these men ...had driven around in ten to fifteen VAZ-2121 (Niva) and VAZ-21099 cars...”
17.  On 21 December 2004 an inspecting officer from the criminal investigation division of the Chechnya MVD issued a summary of the official internal inquiry into the circumstances of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov’s death. The document stated, inter alia, the following:
“... at about 10.50 p.m. on 19 November 2004 in Zhukovskogo Street in Grozny, next to “Musa Motors” service station a group of thirty unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms who were armed with automatic firearms and drove around in ten to fifteen silver “Niva” and VAZ-21099 cars without registration numbers, stopped a silver VAZ-21099 car... with police sergeant Khozh-Akhmed Akhmadov and private M.K inside. These men introduced themselves as officers from the OMON of the Chechnya MVD, and took from Mr M.K. his service gun PM no. 4012, and from Kh.-A. Akhmadov his service gun PM no. 4101. Kh.‑A. Akhmadov tried to run away, but the men opened gunfire. As a result Kh.‑A. Akhmadov was wounded; he died from his gunshot wounds on 21 November 2004 in Grozny town hospital no. 9.
...in the course of this inquiry private M.K. stated that ... he and Kh.‑A. Akhmadov... had been stopped by a group of thirty unidentified men in camouflage uniforms armed with automatic firearms. M.K. had come out of his car and introduced himself as an officer from the PPSM regiment of the Chechnya MVD. These men had attacked him and started beating him... had managed to take away his service gun....gunshots had been fired ...he had run up to Kh.‑A. Akhmadov, who had received gunshot wounds and was on the ground. These persons had taken away Kh.-A. Akhmadov’s service gun and had quickly driven away. M.K. had taken wounded Kh.-A. Akhmadov to Grozny town hospital no. 9. Sometime later he had reported the events to the duty station of the PPSM regiment of the Chechnya MVD...
... as a result of operational measures taken by the heads of the PPSM battalion of the Chechnya MVD, service guns PM VO 4101 03 and PM 4012 03, which had been taken away [during the incident] were returned to the battalion. ”
18.  On 26 February 2005 the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to suspend the criminal investigation for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.
19.  On 2 February 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to resume the investigation and informed the applicant accordingly.
20.  On 16 March 2006 the Chechnya MVD informed the applicant that they had examined her complaint about her son’s murder.
21.  On 29 June 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant, inter alia, that on 15 June 2006 they had overruled the decision to suspend the investigation, and that the investigators had been instructed to take certain investigating steps.
22.  On 22 July 2006 the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to suspend the criminal investigation for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators and informed the applicant accordingly.
23.  At the beginning of 2007 the applicant complained to the Russian Prosecutor General about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son’s murder. On 30 March 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed her that they were examining her complaint. It is unclear whether the applicant received any further response from the authorities.
24.  On 19 November 2004 an operational search officer questioned Mr M.S. (also referred to as B.S. in the document submitted), an officer from the PPSM unit, who stated that earlier on that day he had been patrolling the streets in the vicinity of ‘Musa Motors’ service station when he had heard automatic gunfire. He had run to the place and there found a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms, who were driving around in more than ten cars and introduced themselves as OMON officers conducting a special operation.
25.  On 20 November 2004 an operational search officer from the Leninskiy district department of the interior of Grozny (the ROVD), lieutenant colonel B. questioned Mr S.M., an employee of ‘Musa Motors’ service station. His statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by officer M.S. on 19 November 2004.
26.  On 19 or 20 November 2004 an operational search officer questioned private M.K., the colleague of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov, who stated that in the evening of 19 November 2004, next to ‘Musa Motors’ service station they had been stopped by a group of thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms, some of whom had been masked. The men had beaten him up and taken away his service gun. They had shot Kh.‑A. Akhmadov; M.K. had taken him to town hospital no. 9 in Grozny.
27.  On 20 November 2004 lieutenant colonel B. filed an official report concerning the circumstances of the wounding of patrolling officer Kh.‑A. Akhmadov. According to the document, the applicant’s son had been shot by a group of about thirty men in camouflage uniforms, who had introduced themselves as police officers from the OMON of the Chechnya MVD who were carrying out a special operation. The OMON officers, who were driving around in ten to fifteen cars of VAZ‑2121 (‘Niva’) and VAZ‑21099 (‘Zhiguli’) models, had taken away the service guns of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov and his colleague M.K.
28.  On 20 November 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene, and collected forty-seven bullet casings left by the perpetrators of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov’s killing.
29.  On 26 November 2004 the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal case no. 30139 in connection with the killing of the applicant’s son.
30.  On 15 December 2004 the Expert Evaluations Bureau (the Bureau) of the Chechnya MVD informed the investigators that traces on three of the bullet casings collected from the crime scene in case no. 30112 matched the traces on three of the bullet casings collected from the crime scene in criminal case no. 30139, which meant that these bullets must have been fired from the same gun. On the basis of this finding the investigations concerning the two criminal cases were joined and the criminal case was given the joint number 30112 (see paragraph 44 below).
31.  On 23 December 2004 the investigators questioned Mr M.S., who reiterated his statement of 19 November 2004 (see paragraph 24 above) and added that the perpetrators’ vehicles had been white and silver, and had had blackened windows.
32.  On 27 December 2004 the investigators again questioned officer M.S., who stated that on 19 November 2004 he and his five colleagues had been patrolling the area next to ‘Musa Motors’ service station when they had heard gunfire. In about ten minutes they had arrived at the place of the shooting. There they had found a group of about thirty armed men in camouflaged uniforms who had informed them that they were from the OMON, and in the process of carrying out a special operation. These men, who had beaten up private M.K. and had killed patrolling officer Kh.‑A. Akhmadov, had been driving around in nine or ten VAZ ‘Niva’ and ‘Zhiguli’ model silver and white cars.
33.  On 17 January 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr S.M., an employee of ‘Musa Motors’ service station, who stated that on 19 November 2004 he had been at work when a group of twenty to thirty VAZ‑2109 (‘Zhiguli’) and VAZ-2121 (‘Niva’) vehicles had arrived at the station. The armed men, who had been riding in the cars, had been in camouflage uniforms and masks; they had ordered Mr S.M. to stay inside and he had obeyed. About half an hour later he had heard gunfire and had heard men screaming in Chechen that someone had to be put in a car. Later on Mr S.M. had learnt that the armed men had wounded a patrolling police officer.
34.  On 18 January 2005 the investigators again questioned private M.K., who stated that in the evening of 19 November 2004 he had been driving with his colleague Mr Kh‑A. Akhmadov, when their car had been stopped next to the ‘Musa Motors’ service station by a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. The men had checked his service identity card and had taken away his service gun; then they had shot the applicant’s son and had also taken away his service identity card and gun.
35.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated, among other things, that the head of the PPMS battalion had told her at her son’s funeral that the latter had been killed by mistake by members of law-enforcement agencies.
36.  On 31 January 2005 the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) informed the investigators that they had not conducted any special operations in Grozny on 19 November 2004.
37.  On 4 February 2005 the investigators requested that the head of the PPMS battalion provide them with the two service guns which had been taken away from the applicant’s son and his colleague on 19 November 2004 and which ‘had been recovered as a result of operational search measures taken by the heads of the PPMS battalion’. According to the request, the guns were needed in order to ‘take investigative steps’.
38.  On the same date, 4 February 2005, the head of the PPMS battalion provided the investigators with the guns as requested.
39.  On 22 February 2005 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the PPMS battalion, officer L.B., who stated that at some point the two service guns which had been taken away by the perpetrators of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov’s killing had been planted by someone at night in the battalion’s premises. According to officer L.B., the perpetrators of the killing must have been working for law-enforcement agencies, as regular criminals or members of illegal armed groups would have kept the guns for themselves. The officer who had found the planted guns had died at some point later as a result of a bomb explosion.
40.  On 25 February 2005 the investigators ordered a ballistic expert evaluation of the two service guns which had been taken away and then returned by the perpetrators of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov’s killing.
41.  On 26 February 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
42.  On 5 March 2005 the experts reported their findings, according to which both guns were in working condition.
43.  On 2 February 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated, and ordered that the investigators take a number of steps. In particular, the investigators were to question again the key witnesses and to clarify the circumstances of the discovery of the guns which had been taken by the perpetrators of the applicant’s son’s killing.
44.  On 2 February 2006 the investigators joined the investigation of criminal case no. 30112, which had been opened in September 2004 by the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in connection with an attack against a group of five policemen perpetrated by unidentified culprits who had opened gunfire on the police car, and of criminal case no. 30139 opened in connection with the applicant’s son’s killing. The decision was taken on the basis of the match between traces on the bullet cartridges recovered from both crime scenes, which signified that the same firearm had been used during the commission of both crimes.
45.  On 3 February 2006 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statement (see paragraph 35 above) and stated, among other things, that according to her son’s colleagues, his murder had been perpetrated by members of law-enforcement agencies, who had committed it by mistake; and that on 22 November 2004 three of her son’s supervisors had visited her house, and had brought her her son’s service gun and his service identity card.
46.  On 16 February 2006 the investigators again questioned private M.K. A copy of his statement was not furnished to the Court.
47.  On 27 February 2006 the investigators questioned an officer from the PPSM, Mr A.K. A copy of his statement was not furnished to the Court.
48.  On 2 March 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
49.  On 14 June 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated, and ordered that the investigators take a number of steps, such as the questioning of witnesses, the ordering of expert evaluations, and the clarification of the circumstances of the discovery of the guns which had been taken by the perpetrators of the applicant’s son’s killing.
50.   On 21 July 2006 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the PPSM battalion, Mr S.D. He stated that he had learnt from an unidentified source that the applicant’s son had been killed by servicemen from the ‘Oil Battalion’, who had subsequently brought his service gun and service identity documents to the head of the PPSM battalion and had explained to the latter that they had killed Kh.‑A. Akhmadov by mistake, having taken him for a member of an illegal armed group.
51.  On 22 July 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
52.  On 2 November 2009 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated, and ordered that the investigators take a number of steps, including the following: identifying and questioning the persons who had told the applicant that her son had been killed by mistake; questioning additional eye-witnesses to the events of 19 November 2004 at the service station, namely Mr Kh.Kh., Mr L‑A.B., Mr I and Mr Z.; establishing the owners of the vehicles used by the perpetrators of Kh.‑A. Akhmadov’s killing; and questioning the head of the PPSM battalion, officer S.R., who had told the applicant that her son had been killed by servicemen under the command of officer A.M. From the materials submitted to the Court, it appears that these orders have not been complied with.
53.  On 11 November 2009 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed following the Prosecutor’s orders.
54.  On various dates between 26 November 2004 and 17 November 2009 the investigators forwarded requests for information to various law-enforcement agencies, asking them to provide information and assistance in establishing the witnesses to the events.
55.  On 11 March 2010 the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
56.  The investigation failed to establish the perpetrators of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov’s killing, but the proceedings were still in progress at the time the application was lodged.
57.  Upon specific request by the Court, the Government disclosed the ‘the full contents of criminal case file no. 30112’ which was 423 pages long.